In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
Decision Date | 30 November 1989 |
Docket Number | Adv. No. 89-08.,Bankruptcy No. 88-00043 |
Parties | In re PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Debtor. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, v. The STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE and The State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, Defendants. |
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Hampshire |
Isaac M. Pachulski, Don Willenburg, Los Angeles, Cal., Kevin J. Burke, for Public Service Co.
Geoffrey B. Kalmus, New York City, J. Michael Deasy, for the Unsecured Creditors Committee.
Richard Tilton, for the Equity Committee.
Larry M. Smukler, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Concord, N.H., Daniel J. Callaghan, Manchester, N.H., for the State of N.H.
William B. Gundling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for the State of Conn.
Susan Keely, for the U.S. Trustee.
George J. Wade, Barbara J. Gould, New York City, and David J. Dunfey, Hampton, N.H., for Citicorp and Consolidated Utilities & Communications, Inc. (CUC).
Peter V. Doyle, West Springfield, N.H., for First Fidelity Bank and Amoskeag Bank.
Jeffrey G. Grody, Hartford, Conn., for Northeast Utilities Service Co.
Ted A. Berkowitz, New York City, for First Fidelity Bank.
Robert Drain, New York City, for Shearson, Lehman, Hutton, Inc. Peter Nils Baylor, Boston, Mass., for Bank of New England and Maryland Nat. Bank.
David W. Marshall, for NEES.
John M. Mutkoski, Cheshire, Conn., for Small Power Producers and Alexandria Power Bio Energy.
Sallie H. Helm, Washington, D.C., for Spear, Leeds & Kellogg.
Noel E. Hanf, New Haven, Conn., for The United Illuminating Co.
This chapter 11 adversary proceeding involves a complaint filed by the plaintiff, Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH") against the defendants, State of New Hampshire, and the State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. The complaint is for a declaratory judgment as to the preemptive effect of certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., as against conflicting state regulatory requirements, concerning certain of the restructuring transactions included in the debtor's pending plan of reorganization. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334, 2201, and the general reference order dated February 1, 1985 by the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire.
The unique and unprecedented nature of these reorganization proceedings, involving a regulated monopoly electric utility debtor in reorganization, have been set forth in some detail in earlier opinions entered in this case which provide some insight into the peculiar problems raised in a bankruptcy court reorganization of such an entity, and the particular situation of PSNH in that regard. See, e.g., In re PSNH, 88 B.R. 521 (Bankr.D.N.H.1988); In re PSNH, 88 B.R. 546 (Bankr.D.N.H.1988); In re PSNH, 99 B.R. 155 (Bankr.D.N.H.1989); and In re PSNH, 99 B.R. 177 (Bankr.D.N. H.1989). Such insight provides important context and background for analysis and understanding of the possible preemptive intent of Congress in enacting the statutory provision in question — particularly in terms of the various legal and factual "circularity" problems presented by such a reorganization proceeding. See In re PSNH, 88 B.R. 521, 526-533 (Bankr.D.N.H.1988); In re PSNH, 88 B.R. 546, 552-557 (Bankr. D.N.H.1988).1
On January 28, 1988, the debtor filed its chapter 11 petition. On December 27, 1988, the debtor filed its plan of reorganization. That plan raised on its face an unresolved and unprecedented legal question which is the subject of this dispute. The issue was first raised by the State of New Hampshire in conjunction with a hearing held on January 6, 1989 concerning further procedures in this complex reorganization proceeding. See "Statement Regarding Procedural Hearing" filed by the State of New Hampshire, January 4, 1989 Court Document No. 1547. As a result of that hearing, the Court on January 20, 1989 issued its "Amended Order to Show Cause Regarding a Briefing Schedule", wherein the Court noted the preemption issue and ordered the parties to show cause on February 22, 1989 why the Court should not establish by order a briefing schedule and procedure for hearing and determining that issue in conjunction with the disclosure statement hearings to be scheduled concerning the debtor's plan.
The Court in its January 20, 1989 Order summarized the nature of the question involved with regard to the filed plan and further plan negotiations as follows:
On February 1, 1989, the debtor filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of the preemption question. On February 3, 1989, the State of New Hampshire filed a written response agreeing that the issue needed to be decided. Later on February 3, 1989, after an extended oral argument on appropriate procedures for hearing the matter, the Court denied the debtor's motion, without prejudice, but allowed the debtor to file a declaratory judgment action as the more appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve the issue.
On February 7, 1989, the debtor filed a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The complaint alleges, inter alia, the following as the basis and the justification for its requested relief:
The debtor's complaint concludes by requesting the following specific declaratory relief:
Declaring the rights and obligations of Public Service and the Defendants regarding the regulatory approvals of the NHPUC, if any, required for confirmation under Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code and implementation of the plan or of any other plan to be filed in this chapter 11 case.
The State of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission filed an answer to the debtor's complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial